Mr. Leslie Carberry:

On that point about the underlying legislation and the soundness of it, that was addressed by the High Court in 2019. In setting aside the 2019 regulations, the court noted that that was quite a serious matter for the courts to do and the reason the court was comfortable doing so in part was because the court's view was that the pre-existing dual consent, substitute consent based system was broadly legally sound. While any specific decision can be challenged on its merits, that was taken into account in the 2019 ruling. I do not want to say specifically it is in the judgment but certainly, in his oral remarks, the judge's view was that the substitute consent process is fundamentally sound.

One of the issues with introducing a new system is it would open up another front for legal challenge because one would not only have individual decisions through the dual consent system challenged on their own but no doubt one would also have this whole new legislative framework challenged. Given what we saw in 2019, it would give real cause to say that there is a straightforward way in which one can move unauthorised development from one regulatory system and try and regularise it in another, and do that in a way in which the courts will not object to.

I take the point about the number of legal challenges but the Department's view - I think it is shared by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage - is that the current system is fit for purpose.